Coones v. Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, KS Board of County Commissioners, 2:22-cv-02447

Plaintiff, as Executor for Olin Coones’ estate, sues officers and the Unified Government for civil rights violations and torts, alleging wrongful conviction for murder.
Plaintiff's claims focus on due process violations (withholding exculpatory evidence, failure to preserve evidence, fabricating evidence) and malicious prosecution by Detectives Michael and Garrison during the investigation of the Schrolls’ deaths.
On September 30, 2024, the court denied qualified immunity to Detectives Michael and Garrison on these federal claims; trial was scheduled to proceed.
On October 1, 2024, Defendants filed an interlocutory appeal; Plaintiff moved to certify the appeal as frivolous to proceed with trial.
The present opinion addresses whether Defendants’ appeal is so baseless as to allow the district court to proceed despite the appeal, ultimately denying Plaintiff’s motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the interlocutory appeal should be certified as frivolous	The appeal is frivolous; challenges are factual, not legal—beyond appellate jurisdiction	Appeal presents legal issues on qualified immunity and is thus proper	Appeal is not frivolous; jurisdictional/mixed issues should be resolved by the Tenth Circuit
Whether detectives' conduct violated due process (Brady, etc.)	Detectives withheld exculpatory evidence and fabricated evidence	Exculpatory value of evidence not clear; no personal responsibility for some evidence	Plaintiff showed enough evidence for jury trial; claims turn on fact disputes—appeal not frivolous
Materiality of withheld evidence (Brady)	Embezzlement/QuikTrip video material; reasonable probability verdict would differ	No clear exculpatory/probative value; detectives didn’t recognize value at the time	Reasonable jury could find materiality; factual issue precludes finding appeal frivolous
Waiver of arguments on appeal	Defendants waived claims not raised on summary judgment	Issues preserved or qualify for appellate relaxation of waiver rule	Some issues arguably waived but not so clearly as to render the appeal wholly without merit or frivolous

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose material exculpatory evidence to defense)
California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984) (due process requires preservation of exculpatory evidence in some circumstances)
Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (1995) (interlocutory appeal limited to legal, not factual, issues in qualified immunity context)
Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (qualified immunity denials may be appealed before final judgment)
Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449 (2009) (materiality standard for Brady violations)